I'd like to give an updated version of my thinking about the Night of Godric's Hollow:

1) The official story requires Avada Kedavra to behave in very funny ways against a love shield (a normally invisible kill turning a body into a burnt crisp.) Furthermore, as far as I can tell, the only way it can be known to be true is if someone cast prior incantum on Voldemort's wand. Which seems unlikely, because Bellatrix snatched it (See Ch. 53).

2) This indicates the good guys are lying or deceived. Possible reasons

a) Godric's Hollow was a trap laid by the good guys, who don't want to reveal their methods, so they made up a story about how it happened to fool the Death Eaters. Unlikely, because if they had, they probably would have prevented Bellatrix from getting Voldemort's wand.

b) Voldemort faked his death. The good guys showed up, noticed they were confused, and figured Voldemort had just executed some inscrutable plot. They make up a story to prevent a panic.

c) Voldemort faked his death. Bellatrix switched a look-alike wand that had, recently, only been used to cast Avada Kedavra, fooling the good guys.

"Voldemort faked his death" is also supported by what we know of his intelligence.

The question is why did Voldemort fake his death? Everything we know about Eliezer's philosophy in this story suggests Voldemort should not have tried a plot that was more complicated than necessary. And it doesn't seem like this plot is necessary. The evidence we have indicates Voldemort was winning the war. So thus far, no theory I've seen for why he would do that looks convincing.

But perhaps, contrary to what we've been led to believe, Voldemort realized he would not win the war if he kept fighting it in a straightforward manner?

The trick of knowing how to send Patronuses to others as messengers has been implied to be kept in Dumbledore's close circle, as a tactical advantage. (e.g. Quirrel mentioning the possibility of Dumbledore teaching Harry this trick -- not as if it's public knowledge)

Hypothesis: original (probably Latin) incantations were aliased to "Wingardium Leviosa" and similar because it was easier for Hogwarts students to learn.

Evidence:

• Powerful wizards still use some Latin spells. Perhaps only up to 7h year magic was aliased?
• We did not see any non-English wizards cast spells yet. It's likely (and fits into the setting) there are other syntaxes.
• Due to the Interdict of Merlin, it's possible the Latin alternatives are lost.

The aliasing could be common knowledge among wizards, but not muggleborns. That could explain Hermione not saying anything when Harry snaps at the silliness of it. Still, Draco doesn't mention it when discussing if early wizards were more powerful.

Do readers get to see non-English speakers cast spells in canon?

IIRC, a well-cast Imperius can be very convincing. I don't think it's likely though, considering H&C's apparent incompetence.

That's not to say other characters we know aren't already under the Imperius. It seems like a spell that would be used often than in cannon if no one is holding any idiot balls.

kind of tangential, but would an arbitrary wizard even know what bleach is?

I tried replacing every </p><p> with </p>^M^M<p> (a blank line between paragraphs), but that didn't work.

And two: interestingly, 'accidental magic' (used by wizarding children before they get their wands, generally in times of high emotion) is actually somewhat more impressive than what just-got-their-wands first years can do.

So? This is like someone saying, after scraping a violin for a few minutes, 'pfft, I can whistle more musically than this darn thing'. It's a tool, and like all tools, takes time to master, but when it does, you're much better than without the tool. (Think about how long it takes to learn a computer, and what one can do with it.)

I'm interested in discussing the world Eliezer has created. Its alternate in obvious and subtle ways. Obviously, in this world both Harry and Quirrelmort are rationalists, but lots of other elements have changed.

-Dumbledore seems more changed by war than his book incarnation, to the point where he is making some obviously bad choices that have impacts on the school -The school is a more dangerous place than it was in the books. By this, I mean that in books 1-4, despite some hijinks, the actual danger was pretty darn low- in first year Harry had to actively try to get into mortal danger (ignoring some deeply unsubtle assasination attempts by Quirrel). In particular other students are never a danger to each other, yet theres a strong implication that here fights really can escalate- or at least that was the attempt with the Heromione arc. This is probably due in part to Dumbledore's approach (I don't believe that the 'Dore of the books would have tolerated such an escalation at all), and the beefing up of Slytherin house, and the Malfoy's in particular. While Lucius Malfoy was clearly a powerful individual in the books, his manipulations were fairly clunky, and nowhere near as subtle as portrayed here.

I think I need to have it in my head that many of the characters are subtly different here, because sometimes I read their portrayal as mocking the attitude in the books, and while sometimes that IS whats happening, sometimes its just because the characters aren't quite the same.

but he had taken the Dark Mark, which is supposed to obviate the need for threats;

"Someone like Snape is not controlled so simply; you could not simply Dark-Mark him into being the best Snape he can be [...] Snape can be a Death Eater who does nothing to merit the death penalty, and still malinger and cease to be an effective agent."

Well, the thing is... from the mouth of Quirrel:

Your parents faced one Dark Lord. And fifty Death Eaters who were perfectly unified, knowing that any breach of their loyalty would be punished by death, that any slack or incompetence would be punished by pain. None could escape the Dark Lord's grasp once they took his Mark. And the Death Eaters agreed to take that terrible Mark because they knew that once they took it, they would be united, facing a divided land.

Of course, he could be lying.

IIRC, Voldemort was perfectly happy to turn Lily over to Snape

Yes, but... he was also perfectly happy to just kill her right there. From the mouth of Voldemort:

"I give you this rare chance to flee. But I will not trouble myself to subdue you, and your death here will not save your child. Step aside, foolish woman, if you have any sense in you at all!"

And then, of course, he ended up just Abracadabra'ing her anyway. So the answer actually seems to be that he just didn't care about retaining Snape's loyalty. He listened to Snape beg for Lily's life and, instead of explaining why this was pathetic (as current!Snape seems to believe he could've), he went off and made a quarter-assed effort not to kill her.

Whatever Quirrel is, he's already shown himself quite different from Voldemort. If nothing else, he learned the lesson of the monastery.

Tom Riddle, when he was young, journeyed to an ancient place of learning, highly esteemed in the rarefied circles to which it was known, to obtain obscure lore that can only be passed from living mind to living mind, and thereby increase the strength of his art. The lessons were difficult, but he studied hard and well; and when he had absorbed all that he could, the last words he spoke to his non-wizard mentor were: "Avada Kedavra."

Rule Twelve: Never leave the source of your power lying around where someone else can find it.

"What's your name?"

The black cloak rotated slightly, back and forth, it didn't look like shoulders shrugging, but it conveyed a shrug. "That is the riddle, young Ravenclaw. Until you solve it, you may call me whatever you wish."

The ... riddle, eh? Hmm. What with that, and the "Tell them I ate it" describing an avatar of Death earlier, I can't help thinking that Tom has failed to pay full attention to that Evil Overlord list of his.

(Assuming, at least for the sake of argument and perhaps for other reasons of which I shall not speak here, that both Quirrell and Hat&Cloak are Voldemort.)